Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BBallF, post: 3508533, member: 10435"] I don't think that is accurate at all. Jordan had 63 against the 86 Celtics in the playoffs who probably had the greatest front court in NBA history and averaged 37 ppg. What stopped Jordan was first the great Celtics teams and then the back to back Pistons teams. He was also maturing as a player. It is true that Pippen had a great defensive year in 91 and thereafter and was developing and the missing piece but you have to remember who won the Finals MVP trophies. It wasn't him. In my view, Pippen was important but could not be "the guy" since they later proved they couldn't win without Jordan. Not only that, each year the Bulls progressed as a team without Pippen and then later when Pippen was in his early years and Jordan had a lot to do with that. He made everyone better that was around him. A solid team behind you may put you in the position to show and achieve greatness but then the great ones rise to the occasion. My objection is to the title and tenor of the article. He called her the GOAT. The author has attempted to prove a theory by statistics centered on individual value to a team exclusive of the team's achievements in the league. As I said, if the player was so valuable and so great, none of those team obstacles would matter. There has to be an "eye" test also. I'm sorry but she didn't look like the GOAT to me. She was a great player and first team all time WNBA and deserves to be in the HOF. The author however was not content with that and had the audacity to"discover" the one true way of determining who was the greatest ever. So if Stewie wins another 4 or 5 titles in her career but her "new value stats" are not as good as Tamika's, she can't be the greatest. It's called "Let me write a controversial article that will get people talking". It obviously worked. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,461

Messages: 4,397,091

Members: 10,210

Latest member: noelle